The Quran discusses Mary’s miraculous conception as well. “Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.” (Quran 19:16-17). After seeing the angel, she said: “I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God.” (Quran 19:18). The angel Gabriel responded: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son.” (Quran 19:19). Her next response is expected. She asked: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” (Quran 19:20). The Angel Gabriel said: “So (it will be): thy Lord saith, ‘That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us.’ It is a matter (so) decreed.” (Quran 19:21). Mary then becomes pregnant.

lol

I actually love Israeli Hummus

You want to talk about what's aggressive, how about this? children who are 5 years old, arrested? children beaten & tortured? palestinian children when arrested are kept in cages outside overnight during snow storms. Or how about food being thrown or their heads while dogs are unleashed to eat the food? If this wasn't true, it would actually look like a very sick joke....

Anonymous wrote:Let me remind you again:

'I do not believe an attack targeting Kibbutzim was planned. I do, however, believe that such a story would be to the benefit of Israel.'"

So what you are saying is Netanyahu was not being truthful when he said the Palestinian prisoners confessed to planning such an attack. Or is it that the 'one source' was being untruthful?

What is a 'story'?

You can go ahead and logic-twist all you want.

Palestinians are tortured till they confess whatever the Israelis want them to. They are then made to sign papers in Hebrew that they do not understand, can't read and that are held against them. So, to answer your question, I have no faith in anything that comes out of Netanyahu's mouth unless there is substantive independent evidence....

Let us imagine, just for a moment, that the deceitful narrative was true. What if Hamas just woke up one fine, clear peaceful morning and said, "Hey, let's start firing missiles at Israel, fellas! Won't that be a hoot?" The fact is that even in that scenario, it would not be an "unprovoked attack," but a legitimate act of self-defense.
How do we know this? Because one of Israel's most honored statesmen told us so. Abba Eban, one of the founding fathers of Israel, used his renowned eloquence to defend Israel in the UN from charges of aggression for striking first in the 1967 Six-Day War. Rising to address the global body -- where he had once served as vice-president of the General Assembly -- Eban put forth his case. The surprise attack was justified, he said, because Egypt had blockaded an Israeli port. He said :

The blockade is by definition an act of war, imposed and enforced through armed violence. Never in history have blockade and peace existed side by side. From May 24 onward, the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant. There is no difference in civil law between murdering a man by slow strangulation or killing him by a shot in the bead. From the moment at which the blockade was imposed, active hostilities had commenced and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights. If a foreign power sought to close Odessa or Copenhagen or Marseilles or New York harbour by the use of force, what would happen? Would there be any discussion about who had fired the first shot? Would anyone ask whether aggression had begun?

The entirety of the American political-media establishment perpetually fails to point out that Gaza has been subject to a stringent and ruinous blockade by Israel since 2007. Israel has imprisoned the people of Gaza in a stateless limbo while carefully controlling almost every aspect of their lives, including what medicines they can have, what manufacturing and building materials they are allowed and even, at times, how much food they are allowed to eat to keep the population weakened but just above malnutrition levels. This brutal regimen in daily life is of course punctuated with regular night raids, bombings, kidnappings, “disappearings” and almost weekly civilians deaths at the hands of Israeli overseers. This has gone on year after year.

Eban said Israel was justified in retaliating with military force when Egypt had blockaded a port for a few weeks. How much more justified would the Palestinians be in retaliating against a total blockade -- by land, sea and air -- that has lasted almost eight years?

I do know that by the terms of the world's great and good, who speak portentously of the "laws of war" and analyze in great detail the "justifications" for violent conflict, the Palestinians have a right to resist the "slow strangulation" of the blockade ... and the "shot in the head" (and the missile in the crib) that they are now being subjected to. By Abba Eban's own reasoning, from the very first day of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, "the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant."

I've been having it for years. It is mostly fine, but the unlimited data tends to be very slow sometimes. I have actually been thinking about switching to ATT & Verizon because of the data issue. Again, its not too bad to the point where you can't use your phone, but it is extremely slow to respond sometimes

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Way to go, Muslima. Try to make the change that these two men into a violent struggle to justify your own actions. It was not. They made historic changes without resorting to violence, certainly not on the scale you advocate for the Palestinians.

Change without violence is possible -- but you don't want that. You embrace it.

I know you would love for me to embrace violence, I don't. You said Mandela's fight was nonviolent, and I just showed you that that wasn't true. So now, you don't have anything to add to the conversation? Yes, change without violence is possible if you're not oppressing a people and keeping them caged in an open air prison. Just like Mandela said "it was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” - Hamas was created 20 years after the state Israel was created. You don't oppress people and expect them to sit down around a fire at night and tell stories & dance!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

That is just an Islamic term and really has been vilified by the West. We even call people who die in childbirth and car accidents martyrs. In Islam, we believe that certain types of deaths elevate the person to a certain level in the Hereafter, because of how painful or tragic the death is. The arabic term is "Shaheed". This has nothing to do with wanting to die, or suicide bombing, terrorism ect.

-The one who dies from a long disease is considered a martyr
-A pregnant woman who dies in pregnancy or while giving birth is considered a martyr
-Whoever is killed defending his property is a martyr.
-he who dies in defense of his own life is a martyr; he who dies in defense of his faith is a martyr; and he who dies in defense of his family is a martyr.
-The one who speaks to a tyrannical leader and commands and forbids him, then the latter kills him–he is a martyr
-Whoever is killed unjustly is considered a martyr.
ect....

E
So, whenever a Muslim dies in one of these ways, you will hear other Muslims call him/her "Martyr" and that is why you hear that in Palestine. Muslims believe that the highest and most honorable death is to die as a Martyr, that doesn't mean we walk around wanting to die or we want to die on a battlefield. To the contrary, like i said earlier even dying in a car accident is considered dying as a martyr. We just believe that the reward of the martyr is superior to any other in the after life, and we consider people who are killed in Palestine of having been killed unjustly, that is why you will hear people call them "Martyrs"

So basically you glorify death. That's why Hamas uses human beings as shields.

We do not glorify death, we mourn our dead the same way you do, we hurt and pain the same way any other human does when they lose a love one. We also believe in another Life after Death, so we do not look at death or this life as the finality of it all!

Here is what you wrote on another thread. It sure sounds like glorifying death and violence.


"Are you sure about that? I don't know of any people/countries who just sat down peacefully, smiles on their faces accepting to be colonized/enslaved/occupied . That did not happen and i don't see that ever happening. History books describe in great details how those countries that you are talking about fought endlessly til one party gave up because they were not strong enough or there was outside pressure or maybe they found their morality somewhere along the way. I dont see how the Palestinians are justifying violence since they are the victims here. In any case, one thing is for sure, Palestinians will fight till Palestine is free, Palestinians do not give up . The route to justice and freedom is paved by bravery, the blood of the people who fight for those ideals, and their memories. Today, most things are manufactured in China but courage is still manufactured in Palestine, and one day Ghaza will be free~ "

You sound like a bunch of rednecks who want everyone out of "their" country who isn't just like them. That land doesn't belong to you any more than it does to the Israelis. Learn to live with others on this planet because that is the direction we are all going as a human race. There is no such thing as countries made up of only one ethnicity any more. Why should that piece of land be any different? I don't feel your pain about it belonging to you or your drama about how you will fight to the death for it. Not feeling it.

And I will repeat it again.The road to justice and freedom is paved by bravery and the blood of the people who fight for the ideals of freedom and justice. There has not been throughout history any freedom or justice that came about without people dying for the sake of freedom. That is an historical truth. Now the rest of your comment is pretty pointless if it was aimed at me because I have been saying all along that I want to see a one nation of Israelis and Palestinians living together peacefully as it happened in Germany, South Africa and Northern Ireland. You don't need to feel my pain, that's not my purpose~

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

I think you should share before things start getting serious and if you see the relationship going anywhere. I think that would definitely be TMI for a first date

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From one ex to another --

God created blind people too. He loves them and they are allowed to have sex (provided it's not gay sex) but he can't make them see. Until they get to heaven.

God also created depressed people, but he recently gave humans the ability to invent depression medication so that these days, depressed people can lead pretty normal lives if they take their meds -- and if they are not gay.

This is what Catholics and people of some other religions are taught, but I don't believe it.

Curious why you guys are always bashing Catholics but not, for example, Muslims. In some Muslim countries gays are executed. But your most rabid hate is directed against the Catholics. Why?

Why do you always want to bring the Muslims into it? Can a Muslim enjoy a discussion without being called into it? I was just starting to relax, smh

Most Americans were pretty relaxed before 9/11, too, for the record. And we haven't been able to relax since. I'm just saying.

Who knew? I and the other Americans I know are pretty relaxed.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Uhm, Oh, Ok, thanks for educating me. I must have been living under a rock

You are being manipulative. You are simply proving you are spreading propaganda and preying on the empathy of those who feel, rather than think.

Thank you! I can't believe we have to sit here being lied to. Palestinians sacrifice their own family and neighbors in their zeal to lay the guilt of the murders at the feet of others they deeply, deeply desire to murder. Then they call out to the world to witness the suffering they are inflicting upon themselves. Sick. Sick. Sick.

Let me get this straight. You are insulted that someone is trying to humanize Palestinians? You actually believe that it is a lie that Palestinians could be humanized. And, this is because you don't believe Palestinians to be human?

Not the PP but...I assume you approve of Palestinians de-humanizing their children?

That you can be manipulated by the likes of Muslima speaks volumes

That you can be manipulated by propaganda speaks volumes about you too~

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course you do. You're permitted to monopolize a thread. Typical.

Monopolize a thread? More like preach from the DcUm pulpit. And preach propaganda at that!

This is so funny. I think Anonymous is the one monopolizing the thread and spreading their own version(s) of propaganda. At least Muslimina identifies her posts.

Signed

Anonymous (I might be one or I might be ten)

I don't think all her posts are identified. Based on the strong writing similarities in posts before she identified herself, you might conclude they belong to her. Also, when someone logs off, that's not to say they don't post anonymously.

It's not a bad thing, far from it.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I did not post anonymously since registering, and of course I posted "Anonymously" before registering and then did say in the middle of the discussion that I was going to register.

But we have you the strong minded individual to come to their rescue, so there is balance in the world